Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@fast,

fast wrote:

If we label statements about laws of nature as 'A', lable laws of nature as 'B', and lable laws of science as 'C', would you by chance be saying A=C?

No, there is no agreement amongst philosophers about the question of whether or not laws of nature exist, and certainly no agreement about what, if they exist, they are. You must have read this dozens of times, what is meant to be difficult about understanding it?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

fast wrote:
If we label statements about laws of nature as 'A', lable laws of nature as 'B', and lable laws of science as 'C', would you by chance be saying A=C?
No, there is no agreement amongst philosophers about the question of whether or not laws of nature exist, and certainly no agreement about what, if they exist, they are. You must have read this dozens of times, what is meant to be difficult about understanding it?

There is obviously a difference between statements and what statements are about. When you speak of laws of science, are you speaking about statements or what statements are about?

@fast,

fast wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
there is no agreement amongst philosophers about the question of whether or not laws of nature exist, and certainly no agreement about what, if they exist, they are.
When you speak of laws of science, are you speaking about statements or what statements are about?

I do not believe that you are half as stupid as you make yourself out to be. My patience, for this idiocy, has gone. If you are not a determinist, then you are not a determinist, who gives a shit?

@ughaibu,

Laws of science were discovered.

@fast,

fast wrote:

Laws of science were discovered.

Really? Okay, give me an example.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

fast wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
there is no agreement amongst philosophers about the question of whether or not laws of nature exist, and certainly no agreement about what, if they exist, they are.
When you speak of laws of science, are you speaking about statements or what statements are about?

I do not believe that you are half as stupid as you make yourself out to be. My patience, for this idiocy, has gone. If you are not a determinist, then you are not a determinist, who gives a shit?

Apparently, sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. As the mood strikes.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

fast wrote:
Laws of science were discovered.
Really? Okay, give me an example.

This is from Wikipedia:

"The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world.[dubious – discuss] Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law."

Notice that it said laws of science may be disproved, and notice that it said a law is an analytic statement. Those two points fail to support my position that laws of science are discovered.

So, do you still believe that laws of science are a product of man? Think now. Consider the source.

@fast,

fast wrote:

Those two points fail to support my position that laws of science are discovered.

And?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

fast wrote:
Those two points fail to support my position that laws of science are discovered.
And?

Oh come now. Remember, your posts are the bright posts. Do tell me what you think. I've even given you a source to help you shine.

You think that laws of science are invented, right? Admit it. I know you want to.

@fast,

fast wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
fast wrote:
Those two points fail to support my position that laws of science are discovered.
And?
Oh come now. Remember, your posts are the bright posts. Do tell me what you think. I've even given you a source to help you shine.
You think that laws of science are invented, right? Admit it. I know you want to.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

fast wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
fast wrote:
Those two points fail to support my position that laws of science are discovered.
And?
Oh come now. Remember, your posts are the bright posts. Do tell me what you think. I've even given you a source to help you shine.
You think that laws of science are invented, right? Admit it. I know you want to.
What the fuck are you trying to say?

According to another Wikipedia link, "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature."

In case you missed it, it says that the law is an expression, and from that, you think what exactly? I could put this in multiple-choice form and run the risk of you suggesting (again) that I am stupid.

@fast,

fast wrote:

run the risk of you suggesting (again) that I am stupid.

Read what you've written. How could any reader not conclude that you are terminally stupid?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

fast wrote:
run the risk of you suggesting (again) that I am stupid.
Read what you've written. How could any reader not conclude that you are terminally stupid?

You are the one that asked for an example when I said laws of science are discovered. You wouldn't have done that if you thought I was correct. Isn't the second law of thermodynamics an example of a law of science?

This is where you come in and agree that it's a law of science. But, you continue to deny (do you not?) that it's discovered.

Again, according to the Wikipedia link, "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature."

I can pretty much agree with that; don’t you? Awe, but you don't think I should agree with that if I think laws of science are discovered, do you? Well, I do agree with that, just as you agree with that, but from that, we come up with two different conclusions about whether the laws of science are invented or discovered. But why?

I'll tell you why. It's because even though we both agree with the link, we do not walk away with the same understanding. Yes it says, "expression," and expressions are not discoveries, but this is where the danger of using Wikipedia sources lie. The author is drowning in his own confusion, and the implications are apparent in the writing. And, you suffer from the same confusion.

Laws are often couched in terms of statements, formulas, and expressions, and because we know that, we know not to think that the law is in fact the expressions but rather what the expressions are expressions of, but wait, we didn't know that, did we?

When the author says, “Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them,” I know instantly that he’s wrong, pedantically speaking. See, it’s not the laws of science that can be disproved. It’s the statements (or expressions) about them that can be wrong. What the expressions are expression of, of course, can’t be disproved, for they are not the discoverable things of the world that the expressions are about.

Both the laws of nature (if they exist) and the laws of science are discoverable.

Your turn. And for the love of things worth loving, please, no links.

@fast,

fast wrote:

What the expressions are expression of, of course, can’t be disproved, for they are not the discoverable things of the world that the expressions are about.

The "not" doesn't belong ... couldn't edit.

Mankind cannot create anything which is not permitted by Nature itself, therefore what man creates has to be in first place potential in Nature, meaning according to natural possibility...

Now, that said and clarified, the only Law´s I know of, are the Law´s of Nature, as the Law´s of Science if against the Law´s of Nature are n´t any law´s at all...

...is a redundant statement to speak on the Law´s of Nature and the law´s of science...

LAW in my mind is a strong word which appeals to Unity and Coherence above all therefore I tend to even avoid the plural and rather prefer the use of the singular to speak of the set of rules that forms the LAW.

From the above its not hard to conclude that I find myself in strong support on the JUSNATURALISM as the source inspiration for Human and every other LAW...

@fast,

fast wrote:

Yes it says, "expression," and expressions are not discoveries, but this is where the danger of using Wikipedia sources lie. The author is drowning in his own confusion, and the implications are apparent in the writing.

Then cite a different source, one which agrees with you.
"There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics"
"The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is"
"A second formulation, due to Rudolf Clausius, is the simplest formulation of the second law"
"A third formulation of the second law, by Lord Kelvin, is the heat engine formulation"
"A fourth version of the second law was deduced by the Greek mathematician Constantin Carathéodory"
"Formulations of the second law in modern textbooks that introduce entropy from the statistical point of view, often contain two parts. The first part states that the entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease, or, to be more precise, the probability of an entropy decrease is exceedingly small. The second part gives the relation between infinitesimal entropy increase of a system and an infinitesimal amount of absorbed heat in case of an arbitrary infinitesimal reversible process: dS = δq / T. The reason why these two statements are not combined into a single statement is because the first part refers to a general non-equilibrium process in which temperature is not defined"
"The second law of thermodynamics is an axiom of thermodynamics"
"In 1856, the German physicist Rudolf Clausius stated what he called the "second fundamental theorem in the mechanical theory of heat" in the following form"
etc, etc, etc.

@fast,

fast wrote:

wayne wrote:
Of course A could have exploded but there was still a point where that option would fail.
But armed with logic, we can maintain that it was still logically possible for the planes not to crash no matter how much of real impossibility it was to avoid it. For example, it was a logical possibility that aliens could have beamed the plane up, and that remains so even if aliens don't actually exist.

Are there any historical examples of actual events that are also logically necessary events?

By that same logic, there remains a span of time, however infinitisimly small, that even aliens could not have beamed the plane up without reversing time.
Are you saying it is logical to reverse time?

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

By that same logic, there remains a span of time, however infinitisimly small, that even aliens could not have beamed the plane up without reversing time.

Are you saying it is logical to reverse time?

No, I'm saying that we're dealing with two very distinctly different creatures: logic and physics. When we look at the words "logical possibility" and "physical possibility," we notice the word they share: "possibility," but that they share the word, however, isn't to imply what we might think it does.

A statement that is self-contradictory is logically impossible, and any statement that is not self-contradictory is logically possible, so any statement that describes a physically impossible event remains logically possible so long as it’s not self-contradictory.

My contention is that some physically impossible events are logically possible--and that hasn't much to do with reversing time.

@fast,

fast wrote:

wayne wrote:
By that same logic, there remains a span of time, however infinitisimly small, that even aliens could not have beamed the plane up without reversing time.

Are you saying it is logical to reverse time?

No, I'm saying that we're dealing with two very distinctly different creatures: logic and physics. When we look at the words "logical possibility" and "physical possibility," we notice the word they share: "possibility," but that they share the word, however, isn't to imply what we might think it does.

A statement that is self-contradictory is logically impossible, and any statement that is not self-contradictory is logically possible, so any statement that describes a physically impossible event remains logically possible so long as it’s not self-contradictory.

My contention is that some physically impossible events are logically possible--and that hasn't much to do with reversing time.

What is physically possible is logically possible, but not conversely. So, although it is logically possible for water to freeze at 212 F, it is not physically possible. To ask whether we could have done otherwise than we did is to ask whether it is physically possible to do otherwise. But now the issue is just how to understand what it means for it to be physically possible to do otherwise. It it means, is it possible for someone in identical conditions to do otherwise, then the answer is no, if determinism is true. But do we ever mean that when we assert that we could have done otherwise? And why would we mean that? What we ordinarily mean is that we could have done otherwise if we had chosen to do otherwise. And that is quite compatible with determinism since the choice changes the original conditions.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Then cite a different source, one which agrees with you.

I don't need a source to agree with me. The point was to explain to you what I was saying.

Assuming that there are 1a) statements about laws of nature and 1B) laws of nature, (inventions and discoveries respectively), and assuming that there are 2a) laws of science (which are purportedly statements/inventions), then what I yearn to know is what 2b is. Any idea?

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know